Do not expect to be taken seriously when asked to provide proof of a contention and as proof, you offer up, a satirical mocking cartoon or comedy bit.

Tina Fey, funny at times, Al Gore, funny at times. Are caricatures of them proof of an point you are trying to make? Not so much.

Using the comic for comedy and fun, or just for satire sake, is the reason comics were drawn. I agree that they mirror reality up to a certain point. But that point never goes over into proof of an argument. Elephants do not wear clothes, and Tina Fey has never been a running mate for the office of the presidency. Both are absolutely not real. And they both do not prove anything beyond the fact that they poke fun at the reality.

However they do not reflect the honest reality, but merely the satirical point the artist/comedian, is trying to get across. Know where the satire line is crossed, and the fact that with some the line was fully left on the cutting room floor.

Of course you understand this, you are not unintelligent. But you are very stubborn to a fault. Like others on these boards.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Thank you so much for thoughtfully adding all that NoahJ. Like you I find it hard to believe that MJ doesn't get the point by now.

Aw. That's nice.

Now, would you kindly explain how it's 'bad' when people (not all people, just a few of them) cite something Sarah Palin never said but Tina Fey did, and 'OK' when you cite something Al Gore never said but a cartoonist did?

Now, would you kindly explain how it's 'bad' when people (not all people, just a few of them) cite something Sarah Palin never said but Tina Fey did, and 'OK' when you cite something Al Gore never said but a cartoonist did?

You'll figure it out. Or not.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

You can and will wait because you've already been told. If you can't stop mischaracterizing the problem, then you can't understand the solution. Try the quote feature to note what I said and not the voices in your head.

Quote:

I dont think it will shock anyone that the top people in Democratic administrations tend to have less private-sector experience than their GOP counterparts. Yet the previous low-water mark for private-sector experience since 1900, the JFK administration, was still three times higher than the Obama Cabinets level.

Heres what makes this background information about the Obama team even more interesting:

As Schulz notes, public sector employment has ranged since the 1950s at between 15 percent and 19 percent of the population, yet the Obama Cabinet got more than 90 percent of its prior experience in this relatively thin slice of America. So, the current Cabinet largely lacks a practical understanding of the country and companies which it now regulates understanding that might come in handy now that our government is more enmeshed than ever with banks and auto makers, and is pushing for radically different rules for energy and health-care producers and consumers.

And I think it means more than just that. If the members of the Cabinet have gotten more than 90 percent of their experience from a sector that makes up less than 20 percent of the work force, they represent a relatively small pool of people. These are people who have been working with one another, and others who are like-minded and have had similar experiences, for the vast majority of their careers. They almost have to have a very narrow perspective on the world. Despite the early talk about the Obama Cabinet mimicking Lincolns team of rivals, they are far less likely to challenge each others ideas outside of a fairly narrow frame of thinking than if they had a broader range of experience. They may be political rivals, but thats the extent of it.

Does this narrowness of experience and understanding outside the Beltway explain why the administration has displayed a tin ear so many times in these first 10 months?

Why does the Obama administration keep suggesting answers that only deal with massively expanding government. You look at the graph and it is easy to see, it is the only answer they know. They are a one note song and people are already tired of hearing.

You can and will wait because you've already been told. If you can't stop mischaracterizing the problem, then you can't understand the solution. Try the quote feature to note what I said and not the voices in your head.

You can repeat 'You have been told' until you're blue in the face. Doesn't make it true. I can understand that the defence of hypocrisy is difficult and embarrassing and commend you on your effort.

Not nearly as tricky as you are making it out to be. What is your end game here? Don't post the question again, what are you trying to accomplish? If it does not bring the thread forward any further, then perhaps it is not worth pursuing.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

According to Pollster.com, which takes all polls regardless of claimed house effects and charts them cumulatively, Obama has less than majority approval and also his disapproval is higher than his approval for the first time.

In the words of the Obama administration, this is unprecedented and extraordinary.

The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot faster than anyone thought possible. People want jobs, not carbon sanctions and threats of fines for health care plans. Reid is pushing it through the Senate and likely won't even be reelected in his own state as his approval is at 38% and both potential Republican candidates are leading him in polls.

Democrats needs to wake up to the fact that killing the messenger and poisoning the well doesn't make them right in a vacuum. The American people are increasingly blaming them for the problems they are creating and also for the problems they claimed they would fix and instead have made worse.

According to Pollster.com, which takes all polls regardless of claimed house effects and charts them cumulatively, Obama has less than majority approval and also his disapproval is higher than his approval for the first time.

In the words of the Obama administration, this is unprecedented and extraordinary.

The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot faster than anyone thought possible. People want jobs, not carbon sanctions and threats of fines for health care plans. Reid is pushing it through the Senate and likely won't even be reelected in his own state as his approval is at 38% and both potential Republican candidates are leading him in polls.

Democrats needs to wake up to the fact that killing the messenger and poisoning the well doesn't make them right in a vacuum. The American people are increasingly blaming them for the problems they are creating and also for the problems they claimed they would fix and instead have made worse.

That is a truly fascinating view of all the polls and the general humor of the country wrt Obama. For those that are interested in the honest average opinion, I cannot see how you would get a more well rounded view than this. Good find.

» Over the weekend, it was revealed that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., had nominated his girlfriend to be a U.S. attorney in his home state. Baucus is a driving force behind the drive to adopt Obamacare in the Senate.

» On Friday, it was reported that the House Ethics Committee had opened an investigation of Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Staffers on Thompson's committee say he tried to regulate the credit card industry -- outside his panel's legislative purview -- to extort campaign donations from the companies facing regulation.

» Pelosi promised to make congressional office expendiavailable on the Internet. Concurrent with the appearance of the new Web site detailing the information, the amount of information previously available to the public has been significantly restricted. Pelosi then claimed falsely that this was a victory for transparency.

» Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Diane Feinstein, D-Cal., offered an amendment to a new press shield law that provides legal protections only to professional journalists employed by established mainstream media -- a blatant attempt to curb independent, often blog-based reporting like that of Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe in their hidden-camera expose of ACORN.

Does that sound honest, open and ethical to you? And this is just what happened in the past week.

They can't pay their taxes but can write up bills where you go to prison for not having health insurance. They claim good intentions while filling their pockets. The steal the future earnings of your children and grandchildren to pay off interest groups while promising jobs. They don't rob from the rich to give to the poor. They rob from the rich to give to themselves while claiming to represent the poor.

Good intentions make the laws, rules and reality go away. Hopefully we wake up from this in 2010.

Good intentions make the laws, rules and reality go away. Hopefully we wake up from this in 2010.

Unfortunately, I don't think the GOP has been humbled enough quite yet to field truly conservative candidates committed to small government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and return to our Constitutional roots. There are some glimmers of hope here and there, but as long as the neocons are running the show, we'll get more of the McSame.

Unfortunately, I don't think the GOP has been humbled enough quite yet to field truly conservative candidates committed to small government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and return to our Constitutional roots. There are some glimmers of hope here and there, but as long as the neocons are running the show, we'll get more of the McSame.

I agree but there are some polls pointing this way and the party and those voting for it seem more willing to toss aside candidates and possibly even winning seats to have those who are truly conservative as opposed to those who are say... RINOS.

If you or Spam register or re-register it will be truly promising times. Me, I'm a Raider fan for christ sakes.

President Barack Obama outlined major new government stimulus and jobs proposals on Tuesday, saying the nation must continue to "spend our way out of this recession."

Surely this is the mark of a genius who's intellect in unmatched in our times.

Plus he lies well:

Quote:

Obama included sharp criticism for Republicans in his speech, accusing them of opposing economic stimulus efforts and his health care overhaul while supporting tax cuts and spending that have ballooned the deficit.

Plus delusional:

Quote:

While acknowledging increasing concerns in Congress and among the public over the nation's growing debt, Obama said critics present a "false choice" between paying down deficits and investing in job creation and economic growth.

To pay for the new programs, the administration is citing the Treasury Department's report on Monday that it expects to get back $200 billion in taxpayer-approved bank bailout funds faster than expected.

Obama suggested this windfall would both help the government spend money on job creation while also paying down the nation's $12 trillion debt.

This is like the kids got hold of Mom and Dad's credit card and a bottle of whiskey and figured they'll just always be able to blame someone else so "Have at it!"

Actually, given the nature of the boomer generation, it is more like Mom and Dad stole their own credit card and a bottle of whiskey and later tried to blame it on their kids thinking the problem wouldn't be charged to them since they were minors.

Sorry Boomer Mom and Dads and Boomer Obama, you've screwed up again and the grandkids charge card isn't going to get you out of it this time.

And as usual, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (I call him "Bobby G") puts his foot in his mouth.

Quote:

"If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I'd visit my doctor," Gibbs said in response to questions from Fox. "I'm sure a six-year-old with a Crayon could do something not unlike that. I don't put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is daily Gallup trend. I don't pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it."

Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport responded: "Gibbs said that if Gallup were his EKG, he would visit his doctor. Well, I think the doctor might ask him what's going on in his life that would cause his EKG to be fluctuating so much. There is, in fact, a lot going on at the moment -- the health care bill, the jobs summit, the Copenhagen climate conference and Afghanistan."

Didn't the Dems and their pals in the media fawn all over Gallup when it put out poor approval ratings for Bush?

They can't pay their taxes but can write up bills where you go to prison for not having health insurance. They claim good intentions while filling their pockets. The steal the future earnings of your children and grandchildren to pay off interest groups while promising jobs. They don't rob from the rich to give to the poor. They rob from the rich to give to themselves while claiming to represent the poor.

Good intentions make the laws, rules and reality go away. Hopefully we wake up from this in 2010.

Not saying you're wrong, but let's be honest: actions like that are hardly confined to that side of the aisle. Like I have said in other topics, there is no practical difference between the parties anymore, two sides of the same cabal.

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James LovelockThe Story of Stuff

Not saying you're wrong, but let's be honest: actions like that are hardly confined to that side of the aisle. Like I have said in other topics, there is no practical difference between the parties anymore, two sides of the same cabal.

I'll gladly agree which is why when power can corrupt everyone, we need to do something to get the power out of Washington D.C. that way whoever it corrupts, there will be less to be corrupt with in regard to pure dollars and percentages.

So were some Republicans corrupt while the government was wallowing in debt to the tune of $250-$400b more a year than it took it. Absolutely.

Are hte Democrats corrupt while the government is wallowing in additional debt to the tune of 1.5 TRILLION a year than it takes in. Absolutely.

Sadly for now, I need to go with the former rather than the latter. I of course wouldn't mind endorsing whatever gets us to balance and moves power out of Washington. So to sum it up, if the choice is between a little liar and a big liar, I choose little.

I'll gladly agree which is why when power can corrupt everyone, we need to do something to get the power out of Washington D.C. that way whoever it corrupts, there will be less to be corrupt with in regard to pure dollars and percentages.

So were some Republicans corrupt while the government was wallowing in debt to the tune of $250-$400b more a year than it took it. Absolutely.

Are hte Democrats corrupt while the government is wallowing in additional debt to the tune of 1.5 TRILLION a year than it takes in. Absolutely.

Sadly for now, I need to go with the former rather than the latter. I of course wouldn't mind endorsing whatever gets us to balance and moves power out of Washington. So to sum it up, if the choice is between a little liar and a big liar, I choose little.

Choosing the lesser of the two evils is still choosing...well...evil.

Time and time again I voted Republican, hoping and praying that "this time" they would start the country down the path to a return to Constitutional roots. Time and time again I and others who had that same hope were ignored, and sometimes even impuned by the very party they supported.

No. The Republican party is using us. They're using us to try to revitalize their party, only to keep us on the same road once they're in power.

Time and time again I voted Republican, hoping and praying that "this time" they would start the country down the path to a return to Constitutional roots. Time and time again I and others who had that same hope were ignored, and sometimes even impuned by the very party they supported.

No. The Republican party is using us. They're using us to try to revitalize their party, only to keep us on the same road once they're in power.

I'm not falling for it anymore.

Given the fact that that number of people will label themselves conservative (40%) is larger than the number that will label themselves Republican (25-34% depending upon the poll) you clearly are not alone.

However I just don't see how conservatives leaving the conservative party will make that party more........conservative. I'm of the view that one of the reasons for the Conservative vs. RINO debate is because the RINO's are in the party machinery on a day to day basis while conservatives show up at the ballot box and then hold their nose and vote. If the conservatives showed up on more than just election day and forced these decisions earlier, we would have better results as a party.

I say this as someone who has been to Republican state and national conventions. There is a lot of sausage making that occurs before things bubble up to the national consciousness. Engaging is the best way to make a change in my view. You are welcome to your own view though.

Obviously there's nothing Obama could do that would appease his opponents. Meanwhile there's plenty Obama can do to disappoint his supporters. Like dropping the public option. Like increasing troops in Afghanistan. Etcetera.

The problem with Obama's approval rating is mainly caused by his pandering to the conservatives.

The problem with Obama's approval rating is mainly caused by his pandering to the conservatives.

But I thought he was the post-partisan President? Now it's "pandering" to conservatives (if that's even true).

Look this guy got elected because he was "historic" and gives a good speech. He made a lot of people feel non-racist and "enlightened" by voting for a black man. he was not Bush.

That and he made promises that were quickly discarded.

Obama's problem is that he thinks people voted for him and his policies when in reality they were more likely voting against someone else and for the "historic-ness" of him. The idea of him. But certainly not his policies.

Given the fact that that number of people will label themselves conservative (40%) is larger than the number that will label themselves Republican (25-34% depending upon the poll) you clearly are not alone.

However I just don't see how conservatives leaving the conservative party will make that party more........conservative. I'm of the view that one of the reasons for the Conservative vs. RINO debate is because the RINO's are in the party machinery on a day to day basis while conservatives show up at the ballot box and then hold their nose and vote. If the conservatives showed up on more than just election day and forced these decisions earlier, we would have better results as a party.

I say this as someone who has been to Republican state and national conventions. There is a lot of sausage making that occurs before things bubble up to the national consciousness. Engaging is the best way to make a change in my view. You are welcome to your own view though.

This past election was kind of an "awakening" for me, politically speaking. Up until McCain got the Republican nomination, I was totally gung-ho about the process. Got as involved as I could, watched all the debates, did my due diligence and kept an open mind (not nearly as open as it is now). Finally, I settled on Mitt Romney. What McCain did to Romney in the primaries with the help of Huckabee was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

I took a step back and seriously looked at what was going on in the party as a whole - what had been going on in the party ever since my first presidential election in 2000. I felt just as I described earlier - that I could not support either candidate from either major party 100%. I had been voting for the lesser of the two evils and got exactly what I voted for. Why did I expect anything different?

In retrospect, knowing what I know now, I would have supported Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. I didn't like his sometimes whiny tone in the debates (when he was allowed time to actually speak), but he was the most conservative, the most constitutionalist of any of the candidates up there. When Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party for president, I did some homework and felt that Baldwin was a candidate I could support 100%. So I did. And I voted for him.

It felt liberating. For the first time, I didn't have to hold my nose as I cast my vote. It was an eye-opening experience for me.

Shortly after the election, I un-registered from the Republican Party, partly in protest, and partly because I truly feel they do not embody my own desire for a return to Constitutional government.

For a time, I was seriously considering registering with the Constitution Party, but I eventually decided not to. I am a Christian, and while I fully embrace the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, I felt that the frequent mentions of Christianity and the Bible in the Constitution Party platform were not in harmony with the precedent set by our founding fathers, who in official political matters frequently referred to, acknowledged, and invoked God, but not Christianity or any other religion in particular.

So for now, I remain unaffiliated with any party, and just consider myself a conservative libertarian constitutionalist.

I will continue to vote, but my vote will not be bound by any loyalty to any party even if I eventually decide to register with one.

From now on, I intend to heed the council of John Quincy Adams:

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

If that leads me to vote Republican, or Democrat, or Constitution, or whatever, then so be it.

This past election was kind of an "awakening" for me, politically speaking. Up until McCain got the Republican nomination, I was totally gung-ho about the process. Got as involved as I could, watched all the debates, did my due diligence and kept an open mind (not nearly as open as it is now). Finally, I settled on Mitt Romney. What McCain did to Romney in the primaries with the help of Huckabee was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

I took a step back and seriously looked at what was going on in the party as a whole - what had been going on in the party ever since my first presidential election in 2000. I felt just as I described earlier - that I could not support either candidate from either major party 100%. I had been voting for the lesser of the two evils and got exactly what I voted for. Why did I expect anything different?

In retrospect, knowing what I know now, I would have supported Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. I didn't like his sometimes whiny tone in the debates (when he was allowed time to actually speak), but he was the most conservative, the most constitutionalist of any of the candidates up there. When Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party for president, I did some homework and felt that Baldwin was a candidate I could support 100%. So I did. And I voted for him.

It felt liberating. For the first time, I didn't have to hold my nose as I cast my vote. It was an eye-opening experience for me.

Shortly after the election, I un-registered from the Republican Party, partly in protest, and partly because I truly feel they do not embody my own desire for a return to Constitutional government.

For a time, I was seriously considering registering with the Constitution Party, but I eventually decided not to. I am a Christian, and while I fully embrace the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, I felt that the frequent mentions of Christianity and the Bible in the Constitution Party platform were not in harmony with the precedent set by our founding fathers, who in official political matters frequently referred to, acknowledged, and invoked God, but not Christianity or any other religion in particular.

So for now, I remain unaffiliated with any party, and just consider myself a conservative libertarian constitutionalist.

I will continue to vote, but my vote will not be bound by any loyalty to any party even if I eventually decide to register with one.

From now on, I intend to heed the council of John Quincy Adams:

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

If that leads me to vote Republican, or Democrat, or Constitution, or whatever, then so be it.

You know, I would say the same thing. One difference, I have not changed any party affiliation yet. But I do agree with you in that I have become completely disillusioned with the two party system that rules right now. Party is a non-starter for me and, while it makes choosing harder (oh well), the issues and research of them has been the driving force of my decisions. The problem with this is, you cannot trust what a candidate says about the issues, only their record. And so with new candidates, there may be no record to track.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Another thing that occurred to me just now, a nitpick. It would be Democrat rule, not Democratic rule.

However, to expand on my previous post a bit. Most people in this country believe that if you are not registered Democrat or Republican that you are not going to be heard in the election process. Each party dominates the process making it seem that if you do not choose their candidate you are on the outside looking in. So I would guess we will recover from Democrat(ic) rule around the same time we figure out that our government is not based on a two party system. \

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

The number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats fell by nearly two percentage points in November. Added to declines earlier in the year, the number of Democrats in the nation has fallen by five percentage points during 2009.

In November, 36.0% of American adults said they were Democrats. Thats down from 37.8% a month ago and the lowest number of Democrats since December 2005. See the History of Party Trends from January 2004 to the present.

The number of Republicans inched up by just over a point in November to 33.1%. Thats within the narrow range that Republicans have experienced throughout 2009 - from a low of 31.9% to a high of 33.6%.

The number of adults not affiliated with either party grew half a point last month to 30.8%.
Despite the changes, there are still more Democrats than Republicans in the nation. But the gap is down to 2.9 percentage points, the smallest since December 2007.

Anyone want to find a poll from the liberal media complex that has the Republican and Democratic spread at only three points. Hell I'll even take one where the weighing is only 4-5 points in Democratic favor.

This is why the reversal is going to be so quick and strong. Shocking and scaring someone can bring about a temporary change, especially when the media came off the sidelines and went into full campaign mode in the last presidential election but people are tuning them out and getting the information for themselves. That and the reality of Democrats governing cannot be ignored or spun away.

The search, Whitacre said, is complicated by executive-pay limits imposed by the U.S. government on companies that received large federal bailouts.

"I think it would be somebody who is wanting to do this for more than compensation," Whitacre said. "It's big deal. It's about coming back and making a company great and making it public again."

Oops. This wasn't predictable at all.

This would be comical if it weren't so tragic:

Quote:

Whitacre, appointed to GM's board by the Obama administration as part of the auto maker's government-funded restructuring, took over CEO duties this month following the abrupt resignation of Chief Executive Fritz Henderson..."We have a perception problem," said Whitacre, a former AT&T Inc. (T)chairman and CEO. "You have to convince the consumer that what you have is the best."

Whitacre said he's enjoying his time in the CEO post and is still learning about the industry.

Quote:

Since taking over on Dec. 1, Whitacre has shuffled the company's management ranks and laid down a mandate that the company quickly start selling more vehicles. Among his first jobs was to rewrite the company's mission statement. "Now it's to 'design and build the world's best vehicles,"

What an appropriate Obama appointee. First he has no experience with what's he's been given charge to run and he lives in the fantasy world in which one just says things and voilÃ* they just happen as if by magic.

It was sad that many people predicted this would happen, even on these forums. Do not fear though, it shall be explained away by those who are far wiser than us.

Quote:

This would be comical if it weren't so tragic:

Quote:
Whitacre, appointed to GM's board by the Obama administration as part of the auto maker's government-funded restructuring, took over CEO duties this month following the abrupt resignation of Chief Executive Fritz Henderson..."We have a perception problem," said Whitacre, a former AT&T Inc. (T)chairman and CEO. "You have to convince the consumer that what you have is the best."

Whitacre said he's enjoying his time in the CEO post and is still learning about the industry.
Quote:
Since taking over on Dec. 1, Whitacre has shuffled the company's management ranks and laid down a mandate that the company quickly start selling more vehicles. Among his first jobs was to rewrite the company's mission statement. "Now it's to 'design and build the world's best vehicles,"

What an appropriate Obama appointee. First he has no experience with what's he's been given charge to run and he lives in the fantasy world in which one just says things and voilÃ* they just happen as if by magic.

From my vantage point in the job that I have I would say that this is so much par for the course, at least from the public facing side.

"All we have to do is convince the customers that we have the greatest cars! Go out and tell them so!" This is what the employees of car companies are being told right now. It is now our job to sell the vehicles that they produce, even if they are not up to the standards they claim they are. Talk about frustration, just build a vehicle with more cup holders and a chilled glove box, and nearly forget about fuel economy, longevity and reliability. Then wonder why people buy another product...

Then when you finally see your mistake as you plunge off the cliff of bankruptcy expect that the purchasing public is simply going to switch back to your products because you said so? They have a few years ahead of them to prove what they are saying. Ford had done a fairly good job of this, and GM and Chrysler need to take similar approaches if they are to turn around quickly, or even simply survive.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi